G.N. Nayak v. Goa University, AIR 2002 SC 790

FACTS:

1. The appellant Dr. Nayak, and Respondent 5 were candidates for the post of Professor of Marine Science in University of Goa.

2. Sometime before the date of the interview, a note was written by Respondent 2 (Head of the Department) to the Vice-Chancellor, extolling the qualities of the appellant and stating:

   “HOD (Head of Department) submits that if Dr Nayak (the appellant) is relieved from this Department, the Department and the University will lose a dedicated and intelligent faculty whose services are very essential for this newly emerged Department and the young Goa University in general at this juncture.”

3. Respondent 5 obtained a copy of this note and objected to the participation of Respondent 2 and the Dean of the Faculty in the selection on the ground that he apprehended they would be biased against him and had disclosed their bias in favour of the appellant.

4. Respondent 5 filed and later withdrew a writ application to stop their participation. Respondent 2 did not take part in that first selection process. The Selection Committee found neither candidate suitable.

5. In October 1995, a fresh advertisement was issued for the post, with slightly amended additional qualifications. This time, Respondent 2 participated. The Committee recommended the appointment of the appellant, which was accepted by the Executive Council. The formal appointment order was issued to the appellant on 8-6-1996.

6. Respondent 5 filed a second writ petition challenging the selection of the appellant. The High Court upheld the challenge, citing grounds including illegal amendment of eligibility criteria, improper constitution of the Selection Committee, lack of records of inter se grading, vitiation by bias, and the appellant's lack of qualifications.

ISSUE:

Whether the appellant was qualified to have at all been considered for appointment to the post of Professor?

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

According to Respondent 5, the amendment of the qualifications for the post of Professor of Marine Science was illegal. It was contended that under Statute 8, it is the Executive Council which has to prescribe the qualifications after considering the recommendations of the Academic Council. The qualifications prescribed in the 1995 advertisement had allegedly not been prescribed by the Executive Council nor recommended by the Academic Council.

PRINCIPLE INVOLVED:

Nemo Judex In Causa Sua” signifies the rule against bias.

RATIONALE:

1. It is not every kind of bias which in law is taken to vitiate an act. It must be a prejudice which is not founded on reason, and actuated by self-interest — whether pecuniary or personal. Because of this element of personal interest, bias is also seen as an extension of the principles of natural justice that no man should be a judge in his own cause. Being a state of mind, a bias is sometimes impossible to determine. Therefore, the courts have evolved the principle that it is sufficient for a litigant to successfully impugn an action by establishing a reasonable possibility of bias or proving circumstances from which the operation of influences affecting a fair assessment of the merits of the case can be inferred.

2. The Court found no violation of Statute 15 regarding the constitution of the Selection Committee members. If the preferred members were unavailable, the other members approved by the Academic Council and recommended by the Executive Council could be empanelled.

3. It is noteworthy that it was not Respondent 5’s case that Respondent 2’s praise of the appellant was unmerited or that Respondent 2 had any extraneous reasons or reason other than the competence of the appellant for selecting the appellant as Professor. The Supreme Court was also not persuaded to infer bias merely because at the previous selection the appellant was found unsuitable. The previous outcome was not conclusive for all times to come, as demonstrated by Respondent 5 applying again, knowing a reappraisal might yield a different result.

HELD:

Accordingly, the Court set aside the decision of the High Court and allowed the appeal.